3 ms·

Doctors who fail to disclose an interest should lose their license. The SEC doesn't tolerate such shenanigans for finance, why should the FDA permit it for dru

Doctors who fail to disclose an interest should lose their license. The SEC doesn't tolerate such shenanigans for finance, why should the FDA permit it for drugs?

ClassyJacket 2y ago
Doctors who are paid to endorse a drug should lose their licence
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Why is that? Surely you mean without proper disclosure.
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    Because it conflicts with their duty to their patients. Patients should be able to trust their doctor and not have to look for fine print disclosures in the middle of receiving treatment which may or may not impair them cognitively or emotionally.
    - gamepsys 2y ago
      Patients are often in a vulnerable position and we use laws to protect the vulnerable. Not only is the patient often impaired, but there is a massive information asymmetry naturally between an expert with years of post graduate education on a specific topic and a general member of the public. Many other fields that require similar amounts of training have strict codes of ethics regarding who they may take compensation from and how that is disclosed.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I agree, but i take it that this isn't about advertising to patients, but the general public. Some doctors don't even have patients. Some work in drug development itself.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        I think you can assume based on context that GP is referring to practicing physicians, not to research doctors. You can tell because one has a clear conflict of interest and one does not.
- redwall_hp 2y ago
  Drug company employees who attempt to bribe a doctor should be imprisoned.
  - blindriver 2y ago
    If you believe this you should vote for RFK Jr. He’s the only presidential candidate that has actually taken on industry. The VO has pledged to open up all the data in the FDA and CDC for transparency. We need this.
    - aaomidi 2y ago
      Yeah but then you’re voting for RFK.
    - defrost 2y ago
      US Gov't FDA and CDC can already be FOI'd. Records from neither department will cover ongoing "bribery" of regular doctors by Pharma reps, so it's unclear how "we need this" to address that.
      - cheaprentalyeti 2y ago
        They can be FOIA'd, for all the good that will do you. They apparently have, according to the news, employees dedicated to deleting records before they can be FOIA'd, they use burner phones and private email accounts, and when caught the agency boss will say "I don't know who my personal assistant was working for when he did that" in front of Congress. And get away with it. In a matter that regarded some two million or so deaths in the US. [0]: "Fauci concedes wrongdoing at NIAID, just not by him": '“That was wrong and inappropriate and violated policy,” Fauci said of Morens’s scheme to “disappear” problematic emails. “He should not have done that.” Fauci’s chief of staff was in on the scheme. Emails show that Gregory Folkers intentionally misspelled the name of Kristian Andersen, a tactic Morens suggested to avoid FOIA, after Andersen received an $8.9 million NIAID grant, which came two months after he authored a paper arguing that it was “improbable” that COVID-19 had a lab origin.' [1]: It's an image of an email from Gerald Keusch, who worked at NIAID. [0]: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/3027219/fauci-concedes-wrongdoing-niaid-not-by-him/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairnes... [1]: https://x.com/gdemaneuf/status/1797494390535160205 https://x.com/gdemaneuf/status/1797494390535160205
SayMyName 2y ago
As of their latest reporting I could find on the fda site, 3.3B out of their 7.2B budget comes from "user fees", so the more drugs are sold, the more they get back in user fees.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Pretty sure user fees are tied to new drug applications, not to sales. As in FDA validating your trial results is obscenely expensive and they make the companies who consume those services pay for them.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    This is correct. It isn't validation or technical series. It is purely review.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
refurb 2y ago
Isn't the very fact a doctor is on social media saying how great a drug is a giant flashing sign that they are being paid to do it?
- harry8 2y ago
  Lots of doctors from reputable places eg Mayo on X. Weighing in on things with media coverage like whether cholesterol drugs are a good treatment option. Possibly they're countering quakery from charlatans with good, measured opinion. That opinion could also be influenced by paying for their conference attendance, or just plain cash. Undisclosed, such payments would be far from obvious and radically change one's opinion on how convincing their case is or isn't. The new weight loss drugs. Are they good? How serious are the side effects? How often are there problems? Is the risk low and benefits high? Are they good for cancer? Are they good to help alcoholism? Are they scary? Should I take them? Much legit debate there and I'd rather know who is being paid for their opinion faced with the choice when trying to weigh probability in the face of imperfect information.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  The Doctor could conceivably be a passionate professional who wants to share health information with a wider audience. You know, as opposed to a shithead shill. The fact that being a corporate mouthpiece is apparently the default assumed state is a condemnation of our current medical standards.
- SilverBirch 2y ago
  It's easy to imagine a stereotypical "When my patients find their pancreas swimming around in their fish tank, I recommend ACME Pancrease De-marination forceps". But the more important bit is the massive grey area. Let's say your kid plays with Bob's kid on their little league team, you've added each other on Facebook, you put out a post asking if anyone has any advice about your fish tank dwelling pancreas and bob chimes in because he's a doctor. Do you assume Bob is being paid then?
  - refurb 2y ago
    I assume 100% of people on social media are doing for other than altruistic reasons. 100%

Doctors who fail to disclose an interest should lose their license. The SEC doesn't tolerate such shenanigans for finance, why should the FDA permit it for drugs?

ClassyJacket 2y ago

Doctors who are paid to endorse a drug should lose their licence

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Why is that? Surely you mean without proper disclosure.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  Because it conflicts with their duty to their patients. Patients should be able to trust their doctor and not have to look for fine print disclosures in the middle of receiving treatment which may or may not impair them cognitively or emotionally.
  - gamepsys 2y ago
    Patients are often in a vulnerable position and we use laws to protect the vulnerable. Not only is the patient often impaired, but there is a massive information asymmetry naturally between an expert with years of post graduate education on a specific topic and a general member of the public. Many other fields that require similar amounts of training have strict codes of ethics regarding who they may take compensation from and how that is disclosed.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I agree, but i take it that this isn't about advertising to patients, but the general public. Some doctors don't even have patients. Some work in drug development itself.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      I think you can assume based on context that GP is referring to practicing physicians, not to research doctors. You can tell because one has a clear conflict of interest and one does not.
redwall_hp 2y ago
Drug company employees who attempt to bribe a doctor should be imprisoned.
- blindriver 2y ago
  If you believe this you should vote for RFK Jr. He’s the only presidential candidate that has actually taken on industry. The VO has pledged to open up all the data in the FDA and CDC for transparency. We need this.
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    Yeah but then you’re voting for RFK.
  - defrost 2y ago
    US Gov't FDA and CDC can already be FOI'd. Records from neither department will cover ongoing "bribery" of regular doctors by Pharma reps, so it's unclear how "we need this" to address that.
    - cheaprentalyeti 2y ago
      They can be FOIA'd, for all the good that will do you. They apparently have, according to the news, employees dedicated to deleting records before they can be FOIA'd, they use burner phones and private email accounts, and when caught the agency boss will say "I don't know who my personal assistant was working for when he did that" in front of Congress. And get away with it. In a matter that regarded some two million or so deaths in the US. [0]: "Fauci concedes wrongdoing at NIAID, just not by him": '“That was wrong and inappropriate and violated policy,” Fauci said of Morens’s scheme to “disappear” problematic emails. “He should not have done that.” Fauci’s chief of staff was in on the scheme. Emails show that Gregory Folkers intentionally misspelled the name of Kristian Andersen, a tactic Morens suggested to avoid FOIA, after Andersen received an $8.9 million NIAID grant, which came two months after he authored a paper arguing that it was “improbable” that COVID-19 had a lab origin.' [1]: It's an image of an email from Gerald Keusch, who worked at NIAID. [0]: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/3027219/fauci-concedes-wrongdoing-niaid-not-by-him/ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairnes... [1]: https://x.com/gdemaneuf/status/1797494390535160205 https://x.com/gdemaneuf/status/1797494390535160205

SayMyName 2y ago

As of their latest reporting I could find on the fda site, 3.3B out of their 7.2B budget comes from "user fees", so the more drugs are sold, the more they get back in user fees.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Pretty sure user fees are tied to new drug applications, not to sales. As in FDA validating your trial results is obscenely expensive and they make the companies who consume those services pay for them.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  This is correct. It isn't validation or technical series. It is purely review.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

refurb 2y ago

Isn't the very fact a doctor is on social media saying how great a drug is a giant flashing sign that they are being paid to do it?

harry8 2y ago
Lots of doctors from reputable places eg Mayo on X. Weighing in on things with media coverage like whether cholesterol drugs are a good treatment option. Possibly they're countering quakery from charlatans with good, measured opinion. That opinion could also be influenced by paying for their conference attendance, or just plain cash. Undisclosed, such payments would be far from obvious and radically change one's opinion on how convincing their case is or isn't. The new weight loss drugs. Are they good? How serious are the side effects? How often are there problems? Is the risk low and benefits high? Are they good for cancer? Are they good to help alcoholism? Are they scary? Should I take them? Much legit debate there and I'd rather know who is being paid for their opinion faced with the choice when trying to weigh probability in the face of imperfect information.
idle_zealot 2y ago
The Doctor could conceivably be a passionate professional who wants to share health information with a wider audience. You know, as opposed to a shithead shill. The fact that being a corporate mouthpiece is apparently the default assumed state is a condemnation of our current medical standards.
SilverBirch 2y ago
It's easy to imagine a stereotypical "When my patients find their pancreas swimming around in their fish tank, I recommend ACME Pancrease De-marination forceps". But the more important bit is the massive grey area. Let's say your kid plays with Bob's kid on their little league team, you've added each other on Facebook, you put out a post asking if anyone has any advice about your fish tank dwelling pancreas and bob chimes in because he's a doctor. Do you assume Bob is being paid then?
- refurb 2y ago
  I assume 100% of people on social media are doing for other than altruistic reasons. 100%